Marty34

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 16, 2013 -> 12:11 PM) He was just worth the #57 prospect in all of baseball just last year. He does have concussion concerns, and he's a year older/closer to FA, so I don't think he'll cost as much as he did last year but it won't be cheap cheap. Rienzo and Snodgress might get it done Jaso would be a good offensive upgrade for ~300 plate appearances for the next three years. I don't think he's worth sacrificing much of the pitching depth for.

Jaso is a 30 y.o. part-time catcher who can get on base and can't throw. He is worth no more than Rienzo to the Sox at this stage of their building.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 14, 2013 -> 03:20 PM) I like Viciedo and think he still can be really good, but I don't know why he would baffle anyone. It's pretty clear what his problem is. Frustrating for sure. Baffling? No way. If the White Sox are baffled, they need new management. Viciedo's "problem" is that he has never lived up to the hype the Sox organization put on him when he was signed. He's not to blame.

Weiters is mostly hype add Boras to the mix and he's a player to steer clear of.

Konerko returning next season is the biggest non-story with the Sox. Come the middle of May, if he's not producing he'll walk away.

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 09:56 AM) If Merkin or Hayes are saying it, then there's probably something there. I'm not a huge Salty fan, but the Sox really have nothing at catcher. If they can get him for 3 years, and have a healthier Flowers back him up, the Sox would be in a better place. They appear hellbent on getting a LH hitter via FA. Salty or Granderson whichever one is cheaper. Probably Salty.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 09:53 AM) If there was really interest, our beatwriters wouldn't be writing about it. They protect the Sox something fierce. So true. The Sox have the worst beat writers in all of MLB.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 09:21 AM) Says the guy who wants the Sox to get Dan Uggla. You and Balta think the Sox will contend next year. I would rather take Uggla + the prospects the Braves give for taking the contract because they aren't going to contend no matter who plays second.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 10, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) If you wanna go for another top 3 pick then sure, go for it. Only way I'm giving up Dunn is if they get a LH middle of the line bat in here. Even then I might not do it. Paul Konerko offered close to nothing against RH pitching, which is what the Sox predominantly face. Dunn had an OPS nearly 200 points higher than PK against RHers. What are your expectations for the 2014?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 10, 2013 -> 11:46 AM) Who? I can't think of anyone. I'd do it. If Konerko isn't hitting by the middle of May, he retires.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2013 -> 10:04 PM) I'm sure some team would take Dunn if the sox paid half his salary but they wouldn't give a valuable prospect back. So if the White Sox have to send $7 million along to trade Dunn and they don't get anything of large value back, why should they move him? If they're paying for him either way they may as well get the 30 HR in their lineup and see if either they remember how to catch the ball and win some games or get a decent offer at the deadline. The only reason why they'd trade him for a pittance and not get anything back is of someone in the minors was demanding at bats at his position...but he's a DH and there's no DH pushing him. Dunn is the poster boy of this awful offense. With all the money flying around MLB currently even $10M paid to get rid of him is worth it because it shows a fresh start. Sox fans have had enough of Dunn.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 9, 2013 -> 02:58 PM) However, the signing of Jackson is one the team appears to regret, as Epstein told the Chicago Sun-Times: "We got a little ahead of ourselves. We’re not perfect. We didn’t fully understand the scope of our situation, the overall situation with the timing of our business plan, the timing of our facilities and the timing of our baseball plan." www.sbnation.com What a pile of garbage from Theo. I hope Jackson wins 20 games for them next year and they finish last.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 9, 2013 -> 07:34 AM) I would agree if we were to go full rebuild, you move all three of those guys and stockpile prospects. But you don't sign Abreu to the contact we just did and then go full rebuild. Sale isn't getting moved this offseason so it's a pointless discussion. Abreau's contract is going to look cheap after this offseason is complete. I don't see how it would preclude a Sale trade.

My money is on Jay-Z. He's not hated (yet) like Boras.

Joel Sherman had Sale as his surprise player traded this winter. If Sale goes, I think Quintana and Santiago should e moved too. With the reported asking prices of free agents it's hard to believe the Sox will rebuild that way.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) Those are baked into the "1 in 10" part So there is no situation that you would ever recommend going against a 90% success rate.

Harry ragging on Baines in the Yankees game is good stuff. 20 minutes of Twins at Sox, Sept. 1976 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad4m4MWSVV0 3,026 in attendance. Bostock goes for the cycle, Larry Monroe pitching for the Sox. Video quality surprisingly good.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 12:23 PM) Current TV contracts are producing valuations something like 5-10x the previous contracts. The teams who were lucky enough to have their contracts come up right now are raking in a fortune - see the Dodgers. Any team that has any way to renegotiate their TV deal right not ought to be considering it. I thought he meant the Cubs getting out of their deal with WGN TV specifically being good for the Sox.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:50 AM) That could be a really, really good thing for the White Sox and something they absolutely need to look into taking advantage of. How so?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 12:17 PM) If you did something that would only work 1 out of 10 times, and it worked, wouldn't you say that's pretty lucky? Do you think teams that recover onside kicks in the NFL are lucky? Or that guys who get on base due to errors are lucky? Or people who hit on 16 are lucky? Lucky isn't bad, it just means against the odds. Depends on the variables involved at the time.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) And now you're showing that clear cut miscomprehension. The White Sox, in the 2005 season, threw 9 complete games out of a 162 game schedule. That results in a 5.55% chance that they would throw a complete game on any given day, which is roughly 1 in 19 games. To actually throw a complete game, the team would have to be pretty lucky that the pitcher was so good that day. The White Sox did this 4 times in a row. I'm sure my math is wrong here regarding the ability to find variable events and probabilities, but I come up with a 0.00094% chance that the White Sox would have thrown 4 complete games in this instance. It would seem pretty lucky that they would throw 4 complete games in a row given that the odds that they DO NOT throw 4 complete games in a row is 99.99996%, right? Thus, the White Sox were lucky to throw 4 complete games in a row. Lucky does not mean they were bad or wrong. Lucky means against the odds. Given the odds, it was incredibly lucky. Now, if you are arguing that the 2005 White Sox were not incredibly lucky and fortunate and that the team won the World Series beyond all odds, then you are going to find a lot of people that disagree with you. They were incredibly lucky and fortunate, but that's the difference between a bad team and a good team. It's not all numbers and paper and probabilities. Sometimes, check that, A LOT OF times, there is this unaccounted for static fuzz or gray area that you cannot control that we call LUCK that is the difference between a bad team and a good team. You'd argue that the 2013 Red Sox were a better team than the 2013 Cardinals, and some of that is simply due to dumb luck. It's not a bad thing. my comment was not in regard to the 2005 postseason.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:37 AM) According to what? How are there too many variable involved? What are they? What is the threshold for "too many?" There are always too many variables involved to predict the future with certainty. That does NOT mean you shouldn't use what you know to hedge your chances. Just randomly guessing when you don't have to isn't really trying very hard. There are too many variables involved in human biology to ever really get the field of medicine right. Should we stop trying? Has our incomplete picture of medicine NOT helped us increase the quality of our lives? Armed will all this terrific data, aren't you still taking a guess? It's a CYA move . . . "well the computer said I'd be right 90% of the time, they just got lucky." ROFL!

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) You MIGHT be right, that sounds like a plausible number. But you might also be wrong. Might there be research that shows this so we can judge the accuracy or your estimate? Maybe a league-wide shutdown/meltdown ratio? Somebody put some effort into that stat a couple years ago. Too many variables involved. This is not strat-o-matic.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:14 AM) That's not what I said. I literally have no problem whatsoever with the decision that Ozzie made. I said that, in hindsight, I would have taken Garcia out after 8 innings of game 3 to save his arm for a potential game 7. I absolutely do not care that he left him in and there was no incorrect decision to be made in that situation, only varying levels of correct. It worked out and they won and that's all I care about at this point. Maybe I would have cost the Sox the World Series because Vizcaino (and the subsequent relievers) would have allowed 7 runs. Given how well that team was playing, I have a significant level of certainty that I would not have. What SABRmetric are you basing this off of? Give Guillen his due.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:59 AM) Which is why I said there's a 99.999% chance that it would have been fine. If you prefer 99.9% (meaning 1 in 1,000 rather than 1 in 100,000) then whatever, it was a miniscule chance that it would have had an effect. Why would you want to replay it?